1. To Install or Not to Install: Why Businesses Choose On-Site Renewable Energy Michelle Miilu MA Office of Technical Assistance National Environmental Partnership Summit May 11, 2006

2. Background  Renewable energy lead for office  Concern about low % of manufacturers applying for state grants  Driving forces and common ground  Tool to identify good candidates

3. Information Sources  Industry organizations  State funding organizations  Businesses with on-site renewables  Industry currently in the installation process

4. Types of Businesses  Food processors  Plastics  Pharmaceuticals  Aluminum extrusion  Semiconductors  Inverter manufacturer  Beauty salon

5. Main Concerns for Those That Install COST/BENEFIT ENVIRONMENTAL

6. Cost/Benefit  Paybacks typically 5-10 years  Certainty about future energy prices  Large energy users minimize or cut costs while growing business  Stay competitive

7. Environmental  Reliance on fossil fuels  GHG emissions  Concern for employees  Positive affect on regional air quality

8. Technology-Specific Concerns  Availability of resource  Structural/roof issues  Efficiency of technology

9. On-site Renewable Energy is Not for Everyone  Struggling businesses  Low energy prices  No energy efficiency effort Upper-level commitment is important

10. How to Choose the Right Renewable  Availability of resource  Energy demand of business  Community acceptance

11. Good Solar Hot Water Candidates  Have a relatively large demand for hot water  Year around direct sun from 9am-4pm  Space for installation  Structurally sound location  Beauty salons  Plating  Laundries  Textiles  Food processing  Pulp & paper

12. Good Biomass Candidates  Proximity to resource  Demand for heat  Sufficient space

13. Good PV Candidates  Preferred installation area: flat or SW-SE facing, structurally sound, low-cost, minimal obstructions or shading  If roof PV, where roof will not require replacement soon  Where surcharges for peak electricity exist

14. Good Wind Candidates  24/7 operations  >1000ft from nearest residence  Class 3 or better wind (6.5m/s at hub height)  On hill tops  Away from trees, airports, and sandy soil

15. Fresh Hair - Solar Thermal  Full service beauty salon  Considered PV, but too expensive  Projected 8yr payback  $9,400 50-60MBtu/yr project, ~3/4 of need  Tax incentives pay 40%, no grant money  Pro: Investment in company and environment  Con: Water out for 1-2 days during installation and a couple hours during annual maintenance

16. Harbec Plastics - Wind  Injection molder  Considered solar, but better wind resource  Projected 8-9yr payback  $375K 250kW project, no grants or tax benefits  Pro: Everyone knows Harbec is environmentally responsible even if they don’t know what Harbec does  Con: Took 13 months to get planning board approval

17. Bixby - PV  Plastic sheet extruder  Considered wind, but initial investment too high  Projected 6-7yr payback  $345K 51kW project, $257K in tax incentives and state grants  Pro: A lot of publicity  Con: Cloudier winter than expected

19. Things That Renewables Owners Would Change  Location  Equipment  Type  Efficiency  Manufacturer  Sooner!

20. Other Items That May Concern You  #1 complaint was that the process took longer than expected  Except for Fresh Hair, renewables have been completely transparent to production operations  Everyone said they’d do it again if they had it to do over

21. Note to Assistance Providers…  Many companies pursued on-site renewables as a result of direct outreach!  Fresh Hair  Bixby  Cordis  Varian Semiconductor

22. Questions??